District of Massachusetts • 1:25-cv-13272

#1

Nov 04, 2025

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11339882 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Vanessa Vasquez Valladares. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Dill, Nicole) (Entered: 11/04/2025)

#2

Nov 05, 2025

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley. (NMC) (Entered: 11/05/2025)

Nov 05, 2025

Notice of Case Assignment

#3

Nov 07, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#4

Nov 07, 2025

Service Order-2241 Petition

#5

Nov 07, 2025

General Order 19-02

#6

Nov 20, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#7

Nov 20, 2025

Status Report

#8

Nov 20, 2025

Answer/Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241

#9

Nov 26, 2025

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Having reviewed the Petition of Vanessa Vasquez Valladares ("Petitioner") for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, D. 1, and Respondents' response to same, D. 8, the Court ALLOWS the Petition insofar as it sought a bond hearing/custody redetermination before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which the Court ORDERS within seven (7) days of this Order. Respondents are also ENJOINED from denying Petitioner bond on the basis that she is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The Court further ORDERS Respondents to file a status report within ten (10) days of this Order stating whether Petitioner has been granted bond, and, if her request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial.Factual Background. Petitioner is a noncitizen from El Salvador who currently resides in Massachusetts. D. 1 ¶¶ 1-2. On November 4, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") in Allston, Massachusetts, id. ¶ 3, and was subsequently detained at ICE's Boston Hold Room for processing, D. 7 ¶ 2. Petitioner filed the Petition on November 4, 2025. D. 1. On November 5, 2025, ICE transferred Petitioner to Strafford County Department of Corrections in Dover, New Hampshire. D. 7 ¶ 3. On November 7, 2025, ICE transferred Petitioner from Strafford County Department of Corrections at approximately 8:15 a.m. Id. ¶ 4. At 3:07 p.m., this Court entered a Stay of Transfer or Removal Order ("Order") prohibiting Respondents from transferring Petitioner "from the District of Massachusetts to another district unless the government provides advance notice of the intended move." D. 4 at 3. The Order further provided that "[i]f the government contests that Petitioner is presently confined in the District of Massachusetts, the government shall file a notice in writing on the docket stating the name of the facility and its location in which Petitioner is confined... promptly with the Court after the government becomes aware of that fact." Id. Petitioner arrived at the ICE El Paso Hold Room in El Paso, Texas at approximately 7:11 p.m. the same day and was subsequently transferred to the Port Isabel Service Processing Center in Los Fresno, Texas, where she arrived at approximately 9:22 p.m. D. 7 ¶ 4. On November 8, 2025, ICE transferred Petitioner to the El Valle Detention Facility in Raymondville, Texas, where she remains. Id. ¶ 5. Discussion. As an initial matter, the Court considers whether it has jurisdiction over the Petition. "In determining whether this court has jurisdiction over a habeas corpus petition, it first must determine the proper respondent to the petition and, second, whether the court has jurisdiction over that respondent." McPherson v. Holder, No. 14-cv-30207-MGM, 2015 WL 12861171, at *2 (D. Mass. Mar. 4, 2015) (citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004)). Petitioner properly filed the Petition in this district at a time when she was confined here. D. 7 ¶¶ 1-2; see Padilla, 542 U.S. at 447. Petitioner also properly named her immediate custodian, Respondent Particia Hyde, Director of the Boston Field Office for ICE/ERO, when the Petition was filed as she was initially detained at the Boston Hold Room. See D. 7 ¶ 2. Thus, this Court's jurisdiction attached at the time she filed the Petition. See Williams v. Warden, FCI Berlin, 786 F. Supp. 3d 436, 446 (D.N.H. 2025). Petitioner, however, was subsequently transferred outside of Massachusetts and now is in custody in Texas. D. 7 ¶¶ 3-5. "While the First Circuit has not weighed in directly, every court of appeals to have considered the issue has held in some form that the government's post-filing transfer of a § 2241 petitioner out of the court's territorial jurisdiction does not strip the court of jurisdiction over the petition." Williams, 786 F. Supp. 3d at 446 (internal quotation and quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases); Yancey v. Warden, FMC Devens, 682 F. Supp. 3d 97, 100 (D. Mass. 2023) (internal citation omitted) (collecting cases). Respondents do not contest that this Court has jurisdiction over this Petition, see D. 8 at 1, which indicates that they waive the district of confinement rule. See Padilla, 542 U.S. at 452 (Kennedy, J., concurring). Further, in contrast to cases in which "there is no indication that any official with custody over, or legal authority to release, Petitioner remains in this district," see Gonzalez v. Grondolsky, 152 F. Supp. 3d 39, 45 (D. Mass. 2016), certain of the Respondents here who have not objected to the jurisdiction of this Court "ha[ve] the power to provide the relief sought," i.e., a bond hearing, cf. id. (emphasis in original). For all of these reasons, Court concludes that it has jurisdiction over the Petition. As to the Petition itself, as Respondents note in their opposition, D. 8 at 1, "the legal issues presented in this Petition are similar to those recently addressed by this Court in Dias De Carvalho v. Hyde.” Id.; see Order, Dias De Carvalho v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-12677-DJC (D. Mass. Nov. 4, 2025), D. 14 and cases cited. Consistent with this Court's ruling in Dias De Carvalho, the Court concludes that Petitioner's custody is covered by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (which allows for discretionary determination of custody before an immigration judge) and not 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) (which provides for mandatory detention for "applicants for admission"). Order, Dias De Carvalho v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-12677-DJC (D. Mass. Nov. 4, 2025), Doc. No. 14 and cases cited. As such, Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).Accordingly, Petitioner's Petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, D. 1, is ALLOWED insofar as it sought a bond hearing/custody redetermination before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which the Court ORDERS within seven (7) days of this Order. Respondents are also ENJOINED from denying Petitioner bond on the basis that she is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The Court further ORDERS Respondents to file a status report within ten (10) days of this Order stating whether Petitioner has been granted bond, and, if her request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial.(LMH) (Entered: 11/26/2025)

Nov 26, 2025

Order

#10

Dec 05, 2025

Status Report

#11

Dec 09, 2025

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING CASE(LMH) (Entered: 12/09/2025)